No wonder program offices don't understand

This article looks at the subject of acquisition planning from the program office perspective. The author writes about how program offices perceive acquisition planning and how they tend to have difficulty with contracting officers that demand competition after they have done all that work already:

Let's suppose the program people at a customer agency did a thorough job of analyzing and pricing several different technologies and options over the course of 18 months. Various manufacturers had competed hard during this period to show that their technology was the best value. [Emphasis mine]

Later in the artcle, he says,

When these activities [acquisition planning in accordance with the agency's IT plan] are performed, there is an abundance of meaningful competition during which each manufacturer seeks to prove that it offers the best value. During this sales process, it usually becomes quite apparent which product is best for a particular situation, and everyone knows it. [Again, my emphasis]

What is occurs to me is that the requiring activity does not understand that the "competing"and "sales process" is not part of their job.

The contracting rules were designed to allow fair and open- transparent- transactions between the government and its contractors. These rules have placed responsibility on two groups. The requiring activites- the program offices- and the contracting officers.

The program offices represent the end users of what is being purchased. They are the subject matter experts, the planners and engineers. They are responsible for determining what performance parameters- those key features, specifications, certifications, etc.- that are the minimum requirement to meet the needs of the government.

The contracting community, then, creates the opportunity for vendors across the country to determine if they can meet the government's need in a cost-effective way. They do it in a formal process (controlled by rules and regulations enacted way above their pay grades) that allow a maximum number of vendors to compete in a standardized manner, with transparency to the entire transaction.

This means that the formal acquisition process- and those pesky contracting officers- is where the "competing" and "sales process" takes place on a level playing field, in the full light of the rules and regulations of US Code and the FAR. Working that way, the author and his program colleagues would notice far fewer justifications and approvals needed (J&As).

If the program office does not know what they need and must rely on "competing" vendors to "sell" them on a solution, perhaps they are not doing the job the government is expecting of them.

Am I wrong on this? Comment below.